BOSTON  Mitt Romney began his retreat from public life Wednesday at a private breakfast gathering with a couple hundred of his most loyal and affluent campaign benefactors. The former Massachusetts governor, humbled by the thumping that ended his six-year pursuit of the presidency, reminisced about the journey and tried not to cry.

Romney waxed about the roaring crowds in the campaigns closing days and the feeling that he was winning, said donors in attendance. He commended Stuart Stevens, his chief strategist, as well as his senior aides, and then went around thanking donors one by one.

Mitt was vintage Mitt, said L.E. Simmons, an oil investor on Romneys national finance committee. He was analytical, no notes, spoke from the heart and was very appreciative.

But Romneys top aides, who only a couple of days ago were openly speculating about who would fill which jobs in a Romney administration, woke up Wednesday to face brutal recriminations.

Some top donors privately unloaded on Romneys senior staff, describing it as a junior varsity operation that failed to adequately insulate and defend Romney through a summer of relentless attacks from the Obama campaign over his business career and personal wealth.

Everybody feels like they were a bunch of well-meaning folks who were, to use a phrase that Governor Romney coined to describe his opponent, way in over their heads, said one member of the campaigns national finance committee, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

I don't know how to tell you this, but in one of my infrequent postings to Free Republic, I posted this: Mitt Romney: How to lose an election without really trying. One can see the comments I received telling me that Don Feder, one of the greatest Conservative writers, was unknown and wrong. Well, he was not wrong. I was caught up in the enthusiams of Rush Limbaugh and Charles Krauthammer; etc., but the first inkling I got that my original prediction was correct when I posted this post was when I voted and seeing the long lines of people there and the black mn I spoke with and his enthusiams for Obama.

If we had listened to Don Feder in electing Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich (my choices), we would have had a better fighting chance.

Mitt Romney was not the conservative candidate of our dreams, but I don’t believe he deserves to be trashed. Sure, we can criticize campaign performance and weaknesses, but unlike McCain, Romney wanted to win and he fought for it.

He is also a good man and an accomplished man. If we trash that and ridicule him for being financially successful, we are no better than the welfare state addicts who re-elected Obama.

I disagree. People think of Ronald Reagan as this guy who gives great speeches. Actually, Reagan was a seasoned political operative from his days as president of the Screen Actors Guild all the way through California's governorship. The problem with Romney is that he's a political novice - he's only won one election in his life and never spent any time figuring out the ins-and-outs of winning elections. Romney has 20 IQ points or more on GWB, but GWB has superior political judgment from being immersed in politics his whole life.

12
posted on 11/07/2012 10:57:36 PM PST
by Zhang Fei
(Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)

GWB supported the auto bailout because he understood the Electoral College and down ticket effects from the effect on the Rust Belt states. He won OH in 2000 and 2004. Romney should have said nothing or kept a low profile. Instead, he had to grandstand and pen a newspaper editorial. GWB’s gaffes were mainly mispronunciations of words or malapropisms. Romney alienated big chunks of the population with mentions of 47% and his two Cadillacs. Romney’s are the kinds of mistakes experienced pols don’t make.

18
posted on 11/07/2012 11:04:24 PM PST
by Zhang Fei
(Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)

Rove's specialty was GOTV. What we need is a year round 365-days a year equivalent of Democratic machine politician ward heelers - but paid personnel (instead of corrupt part-time fixers) who do constituent service like potholes, college recommendations and so on, thereby giving constituents a personal reason to go out and vote for a candidate. It would be expensive, but not doing so would merely leave the field to the Dems.

21
posted on 11/07/2012 11:09:58 PM PST
by Zhang Fei
(Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)

Nonsense. Bachmann and Newt would have gotten eaten alive by the media. Even though i like both of them they had no chance. Sure we place Reagan as our model , but where is the next Reagan? I seen thousands and thousands of enthusiastic Romney supporters 20000, 30000 at many appearances. He was far a far better candidate than Obama. Romney lost and like all losers he will be kicked while he is down. I am proud to have voted for him and wish him well. He tried his ass off.

Agree. Although his chief campaign strategy must take responsibility for sitting on a load of cash and not answering and rebutting the DNC attempt to define Romney as an evil Bain capitalist, for concentrating solely on the economic issue and not bringing up ads about the Rats booing God at the DNC and issues of Obama’s support for gay marriage. These issues may have either turned off some independents or they may have stayed home..

With the exception of Ross Perot, Romney is a far more successful man in his private endeavors than just about every individual who's ever run for the presidency in this country's history. But what makes someone a better candidate is not his resume - it's the political knowledge gleaned from years of experience in the field. There are many political judgments that can't be outsourced. Because Romney lacked the (election-winning) experience to know any better, he chose the wrong advisers, and they lost the election for him.

29
posted on 11/07/2012 11:17:10 PM PST
by Zhang Fei
(Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)

One thing I clearly remember being said about Mitt is that he can’t close the deal. He was very successful closing in business, but not in politics. From what I’ve read, he was never interested in politics, instead devoting his life to doing missions for his church.

Oh well, not much we can do about anything now. Obama owns this - the people who voted for him - own this and the only one obama can now blame for the last 4 years is himself.

Demographically true, but I disagree. What Reagan would have done (and W. did to some extent) was to recognize the demographics and silence the nativists. America's problem is not hardworking people wanting to come and live in America - which is the case for the overwhelming majority of illegals. They are not bad people and most people know that and the Latino citizens (natural conservatives) take great offense at their persecution.

I am most certainly all for enforcing the law, but the law, in this case, is broken. Thus, we need tobe clear that the GOP will NEVER AGAIN win the White House until it makes peace with the Latino community and comes up with a plan for dealing with the illegals that doesn't involve deportation or splitting families.

32
posted on 11/07/2012 11:31:36 PM PST
by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
(Using profanity gives people who don't want information from you an excuse not to listen.)

One thing I clearly remember being said about Mitt is that he cant close the deal. He was very successful closing in business, but not in politics. From what Ive read, he was never interested in politics, instead devoting his life to doing missions for his church.

My sense is that the guy is a problem solver. You only need closers when your product is no better than the next guy's. Romney is a highly-competent captain of industry who's always let his clearly superior results do the talking. His lack of closing experience is the reason for his gaffes - a closer's emotional antenna are exquisitely tuned to his audience's. Based on some of his gaffes, Romney has no emotional antennae that I can detect.

33
posted on 11/07/2012 11:33:59 PM PST
by Zhang Fei
(Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)

We know Romneys liberal past. Just watch the debate with Kennedy. Im actually surprised this was not used against him in the campaign. I like Romney as a person so Im not going to kick him while hes down. But I was wondering. As we all know, Romney is far from being a right-winger. Hes not a conservative. Now there are some that claim hes the same as Obama. I do not even come to come close to agreeing with that.

But suppose the moderates look at Romney and see only the liberal in him and they look at Obama and are blind to the socialism that we all see in him.

What are the chances that the moderates look into Romneys history and concluded that there really is no HUGE gap between the two on issues and since theres already someone with similar stances in the White House, perhaps its better to keep the one thats already established?

Obama wasn’t Jimmy Carter to them no matter what you think of him.. Obama was Jesus Christ to half of his voters and FDR to the other half.. it’s not 1980 no matter how badly you want to believe it.. 90% of Obama’s voters practially worship the guy.. they voted yesterday for big government and more class warfare and they knowingly and enthusiastically would do it again next week no matter who the Republican was..

From what Ive read, he was never interested in politics, instead devoting his life to doing missions for his church.

Actually, Romney has been a political animal all of his life, starting as a republican intern in his early teens, attending the 1964 convention, being an activist in college, participating in campaigns and political interviews all of his life (including the 1960s), leaving the republican party because of Reagan in 1979, donating to campaigns, becoming a supporter of democrats and a democrat fund raiser and voter, and running for office for the last 20 years while spending about 55 million of his own funds and breaking spending records in multiple campaigns.

Even Ann has run for political office.

37
posted on 11/07/2012 11:53:40 PM PST
by ansel12
(Romney not only reelected Obama, he lost the Senate,ruined the "down ticket", West, Mia Love, Brown.)

Too many “immigrants” are coming in from one culture. That’s far from diverse and most of them are not even “immigrants” because they illegally arrived and Obama signed his executive order and John Boehner did NOTHING.

Ok, thanks for the info. I stand to be corrected. So, Mitt really didn’t like President Reagan? The best president of my lifetime? Hmmm, I guess those liberal Northeast roots of his go very deep - right into the Democrat pocket.

Oh well, he ran his campaign, gave it his all, and the results are what they are. I believe he would have been a good president and probably have been able to head off the crash that is going to come. I wonder what the takers will do when the well runs dry? Mitt and his family are very gracious, classy people and I would have been proud to call him my president. That doesn’t mean I would have agreed with him on everything, but at least he loves America, something I can’t say about the current squatter in the WH.

I overlooked 0bamacare. That was a 'catch all' but captured the hearts of illegal alien would-be voters. If you analyze 0bama's first term, you start to see that every move he made was 'campaign driven' to buy votes for the 2012 election. War on Terror? That doesn't get many votes!

0bama literally started campaigning for his re-election since the day he took office. Being president of the United States of America was just an afterthought. His focus on 0bamacare while jobs tanked was all about the 2012 election. He worked on providing health insurance BECAUSE of his tandem mission to willfully kill off the private sector in the United States, thus forcing more onto entitlements ensuring their vote. Sinister plot.

I disagree. I don't know how old you are -- but if you are under 40 you don't know Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was NOT afraid of the media. Sam Donaldson was just as liberal as the ones out there today, and Reagan handled him with no problem. Romney lacked the killer instinct. That's why he didn't win.He should have at the very least done interviews on the conservative media. P.S. Sorry about getting upset, especially if you are OVER 40 -- but I got very upset with the author of a thread last night titled "Obama is the new Ronald Reagan." I wrote to the lib author and he wrote back, admitting he only remembered Reagan "imperfectly." Ronald Reagan won 49 states in 1984. So please don't tell me Obama could have beaten him.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.